Mono County Community Development Department

PO Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 760.924.1800, fax 924.1801 commdev@mono.ca.gov

PO Box 8 Bridgeport, CA 93517

760.932.5420, fax 932.5431 www.monocounty.ca.gov

Planning / Building / Code Compliance / Environmental / Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) / Local Transportation Commission (LTC) / Regional Planning Advisory Committees (RPACs)

October 4, 2017 To: June Lake Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) From: Wendy Sugimura, Senior Analyst RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA ITEM #8 – RECOMMENDATION ON

THE JUNE LAKE AREA PLAN UPDATE: SHORT-TERM RENTAL POLICIES Please find enclosed the additional following documents:

1. Memorandum responding to various questions and issues raised at and since the last CAC meeting.

2. Three public comment letters received since the last meeting.

Please contact Wendy Sugimura (760.924.1814, wsugimura@mono.ca.gov) with any questions.

Mono County Community Development Department

PO Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 760.924.1800, fax 924.1801 commdev@mono.ca.gov

PO Box 8 Bridgeport, CA 93517

760.932.5420, fax 932.5431 www.monocounty.ca.gov

Planning / Building / Code Compliance / Environmental / Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) / Local Transportation Commission (LTC) / Regional Planning Advisory Committees (RPACs)

October 4, 2017 To: June Lake Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) From: Wendy Sugimura, Senior Analyst RE: QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS At the last meeting on September 6, 2017, the CAC received a presentation on potential policy and regulatory options for addressing short-term rentals (STRs) in June Lake. Several questions were asked at and following that meeting, and this memorandum is intended to provide a response and applicable information. 1. Can the CAC review STR applications in June Lake and provide either a pre-approval or

recommendation to the Planning Commission? The role of the CAC is to help develop and advise various decision-making bodies on local planning policy. By developing planning policies, the CAC establishes the vision, community character, and guidelines by which development projects are evaluated. The evaluation itself, however, is the role of the Planning Commission who is charged with certain approval authorities. One way to think of the system is that the CAC advises on setting the rules, and then the Planning Commission implements the rules. If the roles are not respected, the system does not function as intended. 2. Can STRs be banned? Yes, STRs can be banned outright in June Lake, either in specific neighborhoods or in all single-family neighborhoods. 3. If STRs can be banned, why was it not the proposed policy at the last meeting? Certain people have

been attending these meetings over and over to say the same thing, and are still not being heard. The people in favor of banning STRs have been heard. Banning STRs was included as a policy option that could be selected, and was included as an option in the “Solutions” sticky dot exercise from Day One during the May workshops. In the “Solutions” sticky dot exercise, “Prohibit STR Type I” and “Prohibit STR Type II” were available for people to select at all 10 neighborhood workshop meetings, meaning this data has enough integrity to represent input from all the meetings. None of the Clark Tract meetings resulted in a majority of sticky dots for prohibiting either rental type, although some workshops approached half (around the 40-50% range), particularly for Type II rentals. Only the Petersen Tract workshop resulted in a majority of sticky dots for

Page 2

prohibiting Type II rentals. The number of “dots” in favor of prohibition dropped slightly from Type IIs to Type Is, indicating slightly fewer objections to Type I rentals. The raw data collected is as follows:

Solutions Clark #1 Clark #2 Clark #3 Clark #4 Clark/Open Petersen Prohibit STR Type I 5 2 4 3 3 3 Prohibit STR Type II 8 7 4 4 3 6 Total Workshop Participants 38 15 10 15 7 10

*Note: Only the Clark and Petersen Tract meetings had enough participants to conduct the sticky dot exercise. Staff’s role is to accurately record and represent the overall result of all input into this process. The information from the May workshops did not support a complete and outright ban of Type I and II rentals in any neighborhood, and therefore a ban was not the proposed policy. A case could be made, based on public opinion only, for banning Type II rentals in the Petersen Tract. As was emphasized in the goals established by the Steering Committee for this process, there is a difference between “being heard” and “getting what you want.” The people who would like to see STRs banned have been heard, and the workshop information does not support their position. However, for those who continue to believe that “everyone” is in favor of prohibiting STRs in a neighborhood, an option does exist. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) can be developed without forming a homeowner’s association, and voted upon by residents. Residents can impose their own rules, provided a vote on the CC&Rs pass (which should be no problem if everyone does indeed agree), and ban STRs regardless of the County’s policies. 4. If the workshop input does not support prohibiting Type II rentals (except perhaps in the Petersen

Tract), why is the policy solution for Type II rentals so onerous that it could result in a de facto ban? Changing the land use designation and meeting the minimum district size is not easy, and could result in a concentration of rentals that overly commercialize an area instead dispersing rentals and impacts.

While the workshop information does not support a ban or prohibition on Type II rentals, there were higher numbers and more support for doing so. Logically, then, Type II rentals should be more limited than Type I rentals. Combined with the premise that STRs should be based on the old “sharing economy” model that benefits local residents and does not support a business model, Type II rentals then should be highly restricted. The proposed policy to require changing the land use designation to a new designation (Single Family Residential – Short Term Rental) is more of a traditional “zoning” exercise. The concept is that if an area (a five-acre minimum, in this case) is deemed to have a character more compatible with visitor lodging uses, then the land use designation and permitted uses should reflect that character. Because of this character, more intensive rentals, such as Type II, would be compatible and eventually, the character of the area may indeed change to be more commercialized. 5. Do other caps on the number of permits exist elsewhere? How were they established?

Page 3

A tremendous variety of caps exist, from the number of permits, to the number of days that a unit can be rented, to residency requirements before the unit can be rented, to other creative solutions, and the numerical range for the caps is very broad. The County does not have the resources to exhaustively research the issue, identify the range of caps, or contact individual jurisdictions to research their rationale. Instead, a few detailed studies that seem applicable to the County were identified and researched. Ultimately, if a cap is utilized, June Lake should select a limit that reasonably protects community character. 6. STR data summary from the Mono County Housing Needs Assessment and Residential Survey: A housing needs assessment for Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes is underway, and questions about STRs were included on a resident survey conducted earlier this year. A total of 860 residents responded to the survey, of which 284 were County residents. Overall, one in 20 year-round resident homeowners who responded to the survey intend to convert their property to short-term rentals in the next five years. Most (82%) live in Mammoth Lakes. The remainder live in June Lake (13%) and Bridgeport (5%). Among seasonal homeowners, 8% plan to convert to STRs within the next five years, and half (4%) live in June Lake. According to the survey results, current owners who plan to convert their homes into rental units are most likely to choose long-term rentals (55%), followed by short-term rentals (32%), and then seasonal rentals (14%). Note the survey did not identify individual properties, and so whether the land use designation (e.g., Single-Family Residential or a designation where STRs are permitted) of these potential short-term rental conversions is unknown. In general, the housing needs assessment is identifying and defining the housing problem, and the data indicates STRs represent a small impact overall. Other issues, such as the age, condition, affordability, and quantity of housing units appear to be more significant drivers. However, including incentives for property owners to convert STRs into long-term rentals is important, and is expected to be part of the housing policy toolkit. The final report and toolkit is anticipated to be released for public review in the next couple of months. 7. Can the County provide for a single-person veto in order to deny an application? No, County Counsel has determined that the County cannot arbitrarily “give away” its discretionary decision-making authority to a single individual (or even a party of individuals). It is the County’s responsibility to evaluate land use applications for compliance with the General Plan and any other applicable regulations, and make a determination based on that compliance, the merit of the project, and public input. The fact that Mono County respects public input in this process is supported by denials of STR applications (which were called Transient Rental Overlay Districts [TRODs] back then), and this extensive public input process in June Lake to try to craft a different solution. 8. What about Monterey County’s private road ordinance that allows for a single resident on a

privately-owned road to veto a project accessed by that road?

Page 4

This ordinance (see attached) applies to discretionary land use applications where parties have disputed the legal authority of the applicant to use private roads in the manner proposed by the development application. Monterey County has a situation where private parties may have “Private Road Agreements” and “Private Road Maintenance Agreements,” which don’t apply in Mono County. Those sections are not included in this excerpt. The ordinance also contains language throughout that the County is not party to the private agreements, which does apply to Mono County, but is also not included in this excerpt. Applicable excerpts are included below, along with a very basic analysis. First, a couple of definitions are needed in order to discuss the ordinance: 21.64.320(C)(6). “Party to a Private Road” means both: any person or entity that owns the underlying fee interest in land that is subject to and burdened by a Private Road … and any person or entity that holds an interest in the Private Road and benefits from it … (such as an easement holder) 21.64.320(C)(11). “Proof of Access” means one or more of the following: a.) Written concurrence of all Parties to a Private Road; or… So then, applications fall into different “tiers” based on private agreements. All situations in Mono County would fall under Tier 1: 21.64.320(D)(2)(c)(i). Tier 1: The Project is not subject to a Private Road Agreement or a Private Road Maintenance Agreement; Then, standards are defined and used in evaluating Tier 1 projects: 21.64.320(E). Regulations. For all nonexempt Projects, the following standards, based on substantial evidence in the record, shall apply: 1. Tier 1 Projects: The Appropriate Authority shall consider any objection from a Party to a Private Road regarding access a substantive dispute and shall either deny the Project on that basis or approve the Project subject to the Proof of Access condition described in Subsection 21.64.320(F)(1) and/or the Private Road Maintenance condition described in Subsection 21.64.320(F)(2). This section means that if a single party objects to the use of the road for this project, then the project shall be denied or the “Proof of Access Condition” described below must be met. 21.64.320(F)(1). Proof of Access Condition If the Appropriate Authority finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that a substantive dispute exists regarding the use of a Private Road for a Project, said Authority may approve the Project but shall require as a condition of Project approval that the Applicant provide the County with Proof of Access demonstrating that the dispute has been satisfactorily resolved, in accordance with the Tier standards set forth above. This section means the “Proof of Access” definition (above, section 21.64.320(C)(11)) must be met, which requires the written concurrence of all parties to a private road. Presumably, if even one person on the private road objects, the condition cannot be met and, in a roundabout way, requires the project to be denied.

Page 5

If the costs of repairing and maintaining the road are in dispute (as opposed to access), then the provision below allows for a private agreement, settlement, or other written documentation that the dispute has been resolved. Presumably, the resolution would be for the project applicant to provide repair and maintenance resources. 21.64.320.F.2. Private Road Maintenance Condition If the Appropriate Authority finds, based on substantial evidence in the record and in accordance with the Tier standards set forth above, that a substantive dispute exists regarding the costs of repairing or maintaining a Private Road as it relates to a Project, said Authority may approve the Project but shall require as a condition of Project approval that the Applicant provide the County with adequate documentation demonstrating that the dispute has been satisfactorily resolved. For the purposes of this Section, adequate documentation may include written withdrawal of objections, a properly executed Private Road Maintenance Agreement, a final settlement or final judicial determination, or written documentation showing that a majority of the Parties to a Private Road have agreed to repair and maintenance terms in light of the Project. The conclusion is that this ordinance does allow for one person on a private road to object to access for the project and cause a denial of the application. A couple of points should be noted:

• This ordinance applies to private roads, and would therefore apply to all private roads throughout the county. No distinguishing traits would allow private roads in June Lake to be treated differently than private roads in other parts of the county.

• Development and adoption of this ordinance would be handled separately from the STR issue. It is almost a completely separate issue, relating more to the use and management of private roads.

• The ordinance would apply to any discretionary permit (e.g., use permit), not just short-term rentals. Again, it is an issue related to private roads, not a specific land use.

• Recommendation of this ordinance concept raises an entirely different policy question to the County, and discussion with and direction from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would be required before proceeding. This ordinance expands this particular discussion to a countywide level, and legally limiting the conversation to June Lake does not seem possible.

• The relationship between this ordinance and areas with Zones of Benefits is unknown at this time. Finally, however, this ordinance could potentially achieve the desired result of allowing a veto by a single person through a different mechanism based on private roads.

1

Wendy Sugimura

From: Burdette, Dorothy A <Dorothy.Burdette@wyn.com>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 6:07 PMTo: Wendy SugimuraSubject: Letter from Petersen Tract homeowner

Importance: High

Wendy, Please include this in the letters received re STR. Thank you, Dorothy Burdette   Norma Jean Deak – Petersen Tract Homeowner I would like to express my opposition to short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods in June Lake. Allowing such rentals has the potential to change the nature of the community. I am not suggesting that short-term renters are bad people nor that they come in with the intention to create nuisance, but your attitude toward a neighborhood where you will be spending two or three days may not be the same as your attitude toward the neighborhood in which you live. By increasing the number of people you also increase the potential for problems. If you look on-line you will see that a two or three bedroom house that would normally house a family of four or maybe five could potentially accommodate up to eight people. Furthermore, since it has been claimed that enforcement of regulations is difficult who would stop someone from purchasing a home or two in the middle of a residential area with the sole purpose of weekend rentals?

But my main concern is not nuisance but safety. With more people come more cars on roads that are already challenging. I live in the Petersen Tract and we have had several near misses this summer entering and leaving. The roads are narrow and in the summer there are trees and bushes that block visibility. If someone is entering and leaving at the same time someone has to go to the side to let the other get through. Imagine how this would be with the increase in traffic and winter weather conditions. You will also have an increase in drivers who are not familiar with the roads or perhaps inexperienced in dealing with ice and snow. Like other areas we have private roads so we are responsible if accidents occur on the road in front of our property. The argument that accidents can occur anyway is totally beside the point. The risk increases exponentially with an increase in traffic and with no benefit at all to those of us who will not be involved in the short-term rental business.

It is true that neighbors or longer-term renters can create problems but a community has more effective ways of dealing with issues that arise among neighbors. These neighborhoods are small. Neighbors know each other and can talk to each other about problems. There is also community pressure at work. If you live in a community most people will try to live harmoniously. (Noise complaints are understandably a very low priority for police. Police arrive late or in most cases the following day. No one believes that a sheriff will come from Bridgeport or Bishop after midnight because of a noise complaint in June Lake.) The idea that even if short-term rentals are forbidden in residential neighborhoods that it will happen anyway is irrelevant. Of course that’s true but it’s true of any law. There will always be people who break the law or try to stretch it. It doesn’t mean that we stop passing laws. If there is a ban in place it increases the pressure that a neighborhood can put on a homeowner who ignores it. Also there are many law-abiding citizens who even if they disagree will not break the law. In the end, there will be a lot fewer short-term rentals in a neighborhood that does not allow short-term rentals than in one that does.

I would like to end with some of my impressions of the Sept. 6 meeting. I do not wish to impugn anyone’s motives. I honestly believe that the majority of those on both sides of this issue have good intentions and believe that their view would be best for the community. What I found troubling was that I felt that the power point was bias in favor of short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. Graphs that show the “exploding” “dynamic” market that is now “mainstream”

2

juxtaposed with a man with his head in the sand as he attempts to deny that he has no ability to stop or a frustrated man with his head on his desk pleading “make it go away” communicate clearly that if you are not in support of short-term rental you are in denial fighting against something that is unstoppable. Personally I found it patronizing and counterproductive. Rather than having our heads in the sand or despondently crying out “Make it go away” we are choosing to take a stand against something that we do not believe is in the best interest of our community no matter how popular or widespread it is. Finally, this debate should be concerned with local conditions, not what is happening in Manhattan, West Hollywood or Santa Monica.

 

This email message (including all attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Unless otherwise indicated in the body of this email, nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an electronic signature and this transmission cannot be used to form, document, or authenticate a contract. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and/or its affiliates may monitor all incoming and outgoing email communications in the United States, including the content of emails and attachments, for security, legal compliance, training, quality assurance and other purposes.

1

Wendy Sugimura

From: Dorothy Burdette <lildabldoya@suddenlink.net>Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1:53 PMTo: Wendy SugimuraSubject: Short-term rentals not allowed in San Diego, city attorney says - The San Diego Union-

Tribune

Please include in emails re SFR for CAC members to read http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/tourism/sd-fi-shortterm-rentals-20170315-story.html#share=email~story

Right-click download help protecOutlo ok prauto matic dthis pictu reIn ternet.Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com